(27-06-2012 11:23 AM)morondog Wrote: If his probability wand works so well, why can't he apply it to scientific inquiry too? Maybe he would consent to take a first year algebra test... or how about stats since he knows so much about Bayesian methods? Let's give him a basic stats test. Surely he must know about p values and ANOVA and all that stuff...

I have a feeling WLC is a committee, so "they" would pass the test. The wand gets selectively applied, which is demonstrable from the many known quotes. "It's the career, stupid". The REALLY frustrating thing, is that the integrity of (some) of the opponents seems to prevent "PR" advice. It shouldn't and doesn't. Committee meetings can be good.

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm not going to go over it point-by-point, but rather point out an objective look at it here by another rational thinker.

I hate watching WLC debates because he specifically picks people who aren't experienced debaters. Krauss' points were great but mostly off-topic, which is not the way to win a debate. The responses given by Bucky Ball are good but weren't offered by Krauss -- Krauss just couldn't stay coherent and on point, mainly because he was 1) clearly unfamiliar with the arguments, which is silly because they're the same 5 arguments that WLC offers in every damn debate, and 2) not a skilled debater. But WLC knew that, which is why he agreed to the debate.

It's interesting chapter. Craig talks about "ultimate" good, value, morality, etc... but in his world "ultimate" is equivalent to infinite. If there is no infinite good, if there is no infinite value he argues that there is no value. The rest of us live in a different world - one where finite good, finite value, and finite morality are sufficient to justify finite acts.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.

"When the Inquisitor ceased speaking he waited some time for his Prisoner to answer him. His silence weighed down upon him. He saw the Prisoner intently all the time, looking gently in his face and evidently not wishing to reply. The old man longed for Him to say something, however and terrible. But he suddenly approached the old man in silence and softly kissed him on his bloodless aged lips. That was all his answer. The old man shuddered. His lips moved. He went to the door, opened it, and said to Him: "Go, and come no more...come not at all, never, never!" And he let Him out into the dark alleys of the town. The Prisoner went away."

"And the old man ?"

"The kiss glows in his heart, but the old man adheres to his idea".

(The last lines of The Grand Inquisitor)

In exactly the same way that the Sophist Craig attempts to appear "sciencey", he attempts to appear "literary", and "wise" for one reason, and one reason only. His business. He has proven himself not to be above deliberate deception, (see above), and in the Dostoevsky appeal, he proves his "fundamentalism" to be completely ignorant of the actual content of the text he appeals to, in The Grand Inquisitor.

After all the arguing of the Prisoner with the Cardinal Inquisitor, the Prisoner :

a. does NOT ARGUE with the Inquisitor, (sorry Craig that's your JOB)..arguing, and thus the value of arguments is dismissed as ultimately worthless by Dostoevsky, (and the Prisoner..the Jesus figure),

b. the only thing the Prisoner DOES, (not says), is to kiss the Inquisitor. THAT act, which *could* be interpreted as Christian love, BOTH by Craig, and Dostoevsky, (and also by Christianity in general), 1 Corinthians 13:13, ("the greatest of these is love") and Romans 8 : 38-39, ("nothing can separate us from the love of god") is not necessarily and only approbriable by Christians. It ultimatley is a Humanist argument, NOT a (necessarily) Christian argument.

As usual, Criag assumes his audience is ignorant, and cannot examine the discussion for themselves, and presents his own, as the audience at the magic show most likely has not read The Grand Inquisitor, and indeed Craig counts on that, to make his fallacious discussion appear to be worth the price of admission to the magic show.

BTW, at 8:00 it's Paul Tillich, (not Pat Tillich). Paul Tillich was an interesting Christian Existentialist (Presbyterian ?) pastor/theologian...maybe one of the only ones worth even bothering with, and his books of sermons, (The Eternal Now, The Courage to Be), are definitely worthwhile. Ultimately Tillich agrees with Buber however, and the fundie view of "salvation" is seen as unnecessary, as the business of "original sin" is dismissed as having been a misinterpretation.

The childish foot-stomping, (requiring a simplistic "meaning") of the universe, does not help god's cause. (What if he's not "paying attention", to us, in our terrible twos) ? The fact that at a particular point in time, consciousness can, for whatever period of time, "wink" into existence, and become aware of the universe, and itself, is so utterly meaning-giving, that demanding "eternity" for it, (the "winking experience"), is simply demanding the entire birthday cake for oneself.

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche